[Cite as In re L.E. , 2022-Ohio-594.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN RE: L.E. L.E. L.E. L.E. JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J. : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : : Case No. 2021 CA 0025 : 2021 CA 0026 : 2021 CA 0027 : OPINION 2021 CA 0028

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case Nos. 2018DEP00206, 2019 DEP 00098, 2019DEL 00242 & 2019 DEP 00099 JUDGMENT: Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 1, 2022 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant CHRISTOPHER ZUERCHER JOHN C. O'DONNELL, III. TIFFANY BIRD 10 West Newlon Plac Richland County Childrens Services Mansfield, OH 44902 731 Scholl Rd. Mansfield, OH 44907Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 2
Gwin, P.J. {¶1} Appellant-mother [“Mother”] appeals the April 19, 2021 Judgment Entry of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, w hich terminated her parental rights with respect to her four minor children 1 and granted permanent custody of the children to appellee, Richland County Children Services (h ereinafter “RCCS”). Facts and Procedural History {¶2} Mother and Father 2 are the biological parents of Child 1, b. 08.20.2004, Child 2, b. 08.22.2006, Child 3, b. 09.25.2007 and Child 4, b. 06.02.2011 3 . Mother and Father are not married to each other. Mother is currently marri ed to D.N. {¶3} Child 1 was found to be a delinquent child and a temporary orde r of temporary custody was issued on July 16, 2019. 1T. at 444-445. 4 Child 1 was subsequently placed in the temporary custody of RCCS by order f iled October 10, 2019. 1T. at 445. These orders were filed under the delinquency case number 2019-DEL00242. Id. See, also , Court Exhibit B. {¶4} The case involving Child 2 was commenced with the filing of a C omplaint on November 1, 2018. Child 2 was found to be a dependent child on August 14, 2019 and was placed in the temporary custody of RCCS by Judgment Ent ry filed September 4, 2019. 1T. at 443-444; Court’s Exhibit A.

1 Because the four children’s initials are identical, in this Op inion the children will be referred to by number with the oldest child being Child 1 and the youngest chi ld being Child 4. 2 For the Father’s appeal see, In re L.E ., 5th District Richland Case Numbers 2021CA0032, 2021CA0033, 2021CA0034 and 2021CA0035. The instant appeal focu ses upon those facts relevant to Mother’s efforts to challenge the motion for permanent custody. 3 See, OH ST Supp. R. 44(H) and 45(D) concerning the use of pers onal identifiers 4 For clarity the transcript of the Permanent Custody hearings t hat took place in the trial court will be referred to as “__T.__, signifying the volume and the page n umber.Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 3 {¶5} The case involving Child 3 was commenced with the filing of a C omplaint on May 16, 2019. 1T. at 446; Court’s Exhibit C. Child 3 was fou nd to be a dependent child on August 14, 2019 and was placed in the temporary custody of R CCS on September 4, 2019. 1T. at 450; C ourt’s Exhibit C. {¶6} The case involving Child 4 was commenced with the filing of a C omplaint on May 17, 2019. 1T. at 445-446; Court’s Exhibit D. Child 4 wa s found to be a dependent child on August 14, 2019 and was placed in the temporary custod y of RCCS on September 4, 2019. 1T. at 450; Court’s Exhibit D. {¶7} The allegations of dependency as to Mother in the Complaint wer e: aggressive behaviors, educational neglect, exposing her childre n to domestic violence, a lack of parenting skills and/or ot her personal problems. Furthe r, Child 2 was not attending school, and was engaging in bad behavior. Additionally, the chi ldren had issues with the step-father [D.M.] and stepfather's drug and alcohol abuse and domestic disputes with Mother. {¶8} Case plan objectives for Mother included that she attain approp riate housing, maintain employment, complete a mental health assessme nt, complete a drug and alcohol assessment, be able to meet the basis needs of the children, ensure that the children attended school, develop healthy relationships, engage in individual counseling and follow all recommendations. 1T. at 453; 556. {¶9} On February 28, 2020 Father filed a Motion for Legal Custody of the children. On September 30, 2020 RCCS filed a Motion for Permane nt Custody of the children. A hearing on the motions was conducted by the trial c ourt on March 22, April 5,Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 4 April 8, April 9, and April 12, 2021. Mother chose to attend on ly the April 9, 2021 hearing. 1T. at 191; 389; 627-628; 877. The following evidence was prese nted during the hearings. The needs of the children {¶10} In July 2019, delinquency charges were filed against the two el dest girls, Child 1 and an older sibling who is not a subject of the case a t bar for stealing their Mom's vehicle and wrecking it. Report of guardian ad litem, Mar 16, 2021 at 14; Court’s Exhibit E. Child 1 participated in a p sychiatric evaluation at Catalyst Life Services on June 17, 2020. 1T. at 258-259. Child 1 reported that she had been participating in counseling every two weeks. RCCS Exhibit E. Child 1 suffers from depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder

. 1T. at 259-260. She has had suicidal ideation in the past, and has cut herself. She reported she presently has no su icidal thoughts. 1T. at 261; RCCS Exhibit E. She had been physically abused by her fath er . Child 1 has made some progress in therapy. She was prescribed Lexapro. 1T. at 262. {¶11} Child 2 attended Catalyst Life Services and participated in an initial psychiatric evaluation on November 6, 2019. 1T. at 277. Child 2 was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. 1T. at 38. Concerns w ith Child 2 include attention span, profanity at school, not staying on task, starting fights and declining grades. 1T. at 38. It was reported that Child 2 had problems with an 8-year-ol d boy in his foster placement. 1T. at 60. Child 2 has mimicked Mother's propensity to address adults publicly with disrespect and using vulgar language. {¶12} On June 27, 2019, Child 3 was initially diagnosed with Adjustme nt Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct. 1T. at 202. On August 29, 2019, Child 3’s diagnosis was changed to Oppositional Defiant Disorder. 1T. at 203. Child 3 is anRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 5 extremely angry child. She is disrespectful toward adults, obst inate and purposefully defiant. 1 T. at 205-208; RCCS Exh ibit C. Child 3 is unwilling to accept any blame for her behavior. She is reactive to this anger through the learned beh aviors she has witnessed throughout her life. RCCS Exhibit C. Child 3 has been unsuccess ful in the home environment, foster placements and in school. RCCS Exhibit C. Child 3 indicated that she worries about her mother. 1T. at 209. Child 3 does not like either her Father or her step-father. Id. {¶13} Child 4 has been diagnosed with General Anxiety Disorder, Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Pica which r efers to the eating of nonnutritive substances. 1T. at 231-233. She is defiant to her fo ster parent and counselor. 1T. at 234. Child 4 tears things, throws things, is rude, disre spectful and engaged in fighting at school. 1T. at 234-235. Child 4’s behavior did not improve with counseling. 1T. at 239; RCCS Exhibit D. Mother’s case plan. {¶14} Case plan objectives for Mother included that she attain approp riate housing, maintain employment, complete a mental health assessme nt, complete a drug and alcohol assessment, be able to meet the basis needs of the children, ensure that the children attended school, develop healthy relationships, engage in individual counseling and follow all recommendations. 1T. at 453; 556. Mother’s mental health evaluation {¶15} Dr. Aimee Thomas a psychologist and licensed professional clini cal counselor for Lighthouse Family Center met with Mother on June 4, 2020. 1T. at 24. Dr.Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 6 Thomas completed Mother’s parenting evaluation report on July 3 1, 2020. RCCS Exhibit A; 1T. at 24-25. {¶16} Although Mother signed a Release of Information with the assign ed guardian ad Litem, the RCCS and the Richland County Family Court, she additionally wrote on the signature line "Not agree was forced to sign." RCC S Exhibit A. {¶17} Mother reported that an older half-sibling of the children had been removed from her custody in the past. 1T. at 29-30. Further, Mother all owed another child from a previous relationship to be adopted. Id. {¶18} Mother met her present husband, D.N. shortly before he was inc arcerated in 2013 for drug and alcohol related offenses. Mother married him in 2014 while he was incarcerated. D.N. resumed his problematic use of alcohol afte r his release from prison in 2015. However, Mother insisted that her husband had been sob er for nine months with the support of a court ordered residential treatment program. 1T. at 30; RCCS Exhibit A. {¶19} Mother admitted that although the children did not see physical aggression occur in her relationship with Father, the children likely hear d it and saw the aftermath. 1T. at 32. Mother reported that Father was physically and verba lly abusive toward the children. Id. {¶20} Mother made it clear to Dr. Thomas that she did not want to par ticipate in the evaluation. 1T. at 34. Mother used the interview time to v ent her frustration and anger with RCCS. Id. Mother denied alcohol and drug use. {¶21} Dr. Thomas reviewed the mental health records of the children a s part of her assessment. 1T. at 34. Dr. Thomas concluded that the behavi or of the children pre-Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 7 dated the grant of temporary custody to RCCS. 1T. at 39. In oth er words, the children’s home environment contributed to the behavioral problems of the children. {¶22} Dr. Thomas diagnosed Mother as Other Specified Personality Diso rder - anger management issues, stubborn, histrionic, poor insight. RC CS Exhibit A. Mother was further diagnosed as Dependent Personality Disorder. 1T. at 31. Mother sees herself as a fine, normal person who does not need treatment or service s to assist her in raising her children. 1T. at 33. {¶23} Dr. Thomas recommended Mother participate in weekly individual counseling to develop insight into how her approach to raising her children has contributed to their current emotional and behavioral problems and involvement with RCCS. Counseling should specifically assist Mother with anger m anagement. If Mother’s anger and attitude do not improve with the support of individua l counseling, Dr. Thomas would recommend Mother participate in formal anger management t reatment services. Further, Dr. Thomas recommended Mother participate in an intens ive parenting program and consult with her children's treatment providers. RCCS Exhib it A. {¶24} Mother did not successfully address her anger management issues or complete a parenting program. Mother’s interaction with the children. {¶25} In November of 2018, Child 2’s Mother’s current husband, D.N. b urned items of clothing Child 2 had been given in the driveway of the ir home. {¶26} On May 31, 2019, the trial court entered an order limiting the contact between the minor children and the parents due to a long histor y of the parents coaching and/or threatening the children regarding their communication t o third parties. VisitationsRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 8 were set at the agency and neither parent was to have contact/c ommunication with the children outside of their visits. {¶27} On July 1, 2019, the agency filed an emergency Motion to suspen d the visits between the children and Mother due to the visits being so chao tic and detrimental to the children. Specifically, the agency had to contact law enforceme nt to deal with Mother during a visit because of Mother yelling and screaming, becomin g aggressive toward RCCS staff supervising the visit. 1T. at 363-369; RCCS Exhibit J; Report of guardian ad litem, Mar 16, 2021 at 12. {¶28} Father obtained a civil protection order against Mother on July 11, 2019 that included a provision of no contact with the children, except as provided by the Court. The CPO was obtained because Mother threw a brick at Father's car w hile he and the children were in the car. GAL Exhibit 1. {¶29} During visits between Mother and the children at Children Servi ces, Mother became aggressive and confrontational with agency staff, and by her behavior caused Child 3 and Child 4 to do the same. Mother used loud profanity at the visit. Mother called the supervisor a bitch, and thereafter Child 3 and Child 4 call ed the supervisor names multiple times. 1T. at 366-367; 377-378; RCCS Exhibit J. Chil d 3 attempted to hit the supervisor with a plastic toy. 1T. at 377. Mother denied any i nappropriate behavior occurred during her visitation with her children. 1T. at 781. Mother attributed the children’s behavior during her visits to their not wanting to v isit at RCCS and their desire to come home. Id. {¶30} Child 2 has mimicked Mother's propensity to address adults publ icly with disrespect and using vulgar language.Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 9 {¶31} A chaotic event occurred during a meeting at the trial court wi th Mother, Father, Child 3, Child 4 and agency staff during February of 20 21. During that meeting, Mother and the two girls began ye lling at Father, and he recipr ocated. Security came to the room to quell the disturbance and ensure there was no harm caused to anyone. 1T. at 468-469. {¶32} Mother has had only telephone contact with the children for ove r one year. 1T. at 480. Mother’s counseling {¶33} Mother began counseling with Jason Elliot, a licensed social wo rker under supervision at PsyCare January 4, 2021. 2T. at 707. Elliot has reviewed the evaluation conducted by Dr. Aimee Thomas. 2T. at 700-701. The sessions wer e conducted via Zoom; Mother was never physically present in Elliot’s office. 2 T. at 702. {¶34} Elliot diagnosed Mother as Borderline Personality Disorder. 2T. at 704; 708. Elliott’s diagnosis was based upon Mother’s argumentative behav iors, narcissistic tendencies in her not accepting accountability or responsibilit y; blaming others for Mother’s previous and past actions; Mother’s not being able to accept consequences for thoughts, actions, behavior; Mother’s instability and mood swin gs; aggressive language and Mother’s overly loud and disruptive disposition. 2T. at 708 . Mother refused to sign releases for Elliott to obtain records, 2T. at 726. {¶35} Mother denied any domestic violence occurred in the home. 2T. a t 717. Mother’s explanation for waiting to seek treatment was that she did not do anything wrong. 2T. at 729. Mother denied that s he used either alcohol or any type of drug.Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 10 {¶36} Elliott recommended Mother engage in anger management parenting classes and a psychological evalua tion in addition to his weekl y counseling sessions. 2T. at 703. Mother’s employment and housing {¶37} Mother and her husband presently live in Warren, Ohio. 2T. at 6 34. Prior, the pair had lived in Trumbull County and Richland County. Id. The present residence is described as a townhouse. 2T. at 635. It has two, possibly thre e bedrooms. Id. Mother testified that she has never been homeless. 2T. at 636. {¶38} Mother has an STNA license and is currently employed. 2T. at 63 6; 638. Mother is presently studying to become a phlebotomist. 2T. at 6 38. She anticipated taking her exam on May 12, 2021 and graduating from the program on Jun e 24, 2021. Mother has been consistently employed. 2T. at 638-640. Mother testifie d that she can meet all the financial needs of her home. 2T. at 641. {¶39} Mother admitted to being evicted from two homes and to living w ith her husband in his semi-truck and accompanying him on his employmen t for several weeks. 2T. at 778- 780; 846. D.N. the husband and step-father {¶40} D.N. testified that he is currently employed. 2T. at 824. D.N. further testified that he is attending school to obtain his certification to oper ate heavy machinery. Id. D.N. testified that he is scheduled to graduate from the program May 5, 2021. Id. {¶41} D.N. admitted to having had a substance abuse problem. 2T. at 8 25; 842. D.N. testified that he completed a three month in-patient treat ment program from September through October, 2019 at Teen Challenge in Youngstown , Ohio. 2T. at 825-Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 11 826. After his release, D.N. testified he sought counseling tre atment with Travco. 2T. at 827-828. The agency helped to address both substance abuse and mental health concerns. 2T. at 828. D.N. testified that Dr. Yendrek who pres cribed medication for him. 2T. at 828-829. Further, D.N. testified that he additionally m eets once a month with Cortney, a mental health counselor at Travco. 2T. at 830. He ha s been in counseling for the past three months. Id. D.N. testified that he and Mother b egan attending marriage counseling at Restored Hope about one month ago. 2T. at 831. {¶42} D.N. admitted that he has had an alcohol problem for a number o f years. 2T. at 833. D.N. testified that he has been sober for over 19 m onths. 2T. at 835. D.N. further admitted that he was convicted of vandalism in Richland County in 2020. 2T. at 833. D.N. admitted that he had burned clothing in the driveway of the home that had been given to Child 2. 2T. at 834. D.N. denied that he was ever phys ically violent with Mother. 2T. at 843. D.N. admitted that he had attempted suicide at leas t twice in the past. 2T. at 844. {¶43} D.N. never signed a release of information to RCCS, only Mother ’s attorney. 2T. at 852-853. No records were presented or admitted into evid ence concerning D.N.’s employment, counseling or treatment. Placement of the Children {¶44} Child 1 and Child 4 are currently in different foster placement s in Mansfield, near Father's home. Child 3 is in a foster placement in Upper S andusky. Child 2 is in a foster placement in Dayton. {¶45} Child 2 and Child 3 have been placed in other cities in Ohio be cause they disrupted their foster home placements. Child 2 previously thre atened to push a fosterRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 12 parent down the stairs. Child 3 has been placed elsewhere becau se of choking a person. Child 3 has been in five different placements. Child 1 and Chil d 4 have been in their respective placements for over a year. {¶46} The fact that the children were placed in different locations h as made visitation for the Father difficult to achieve. On occasion he drove seven hours one way to pick up his children, and the same amount of time to return them after visitation. The agency has offered modest help with transportation cost Recommendations {¶47} The guardian ad litem [“GAL”] has investigated this case and th e circumstances of the children, has participated in this case an d has filed a written report with the court. The GAL recommends that the children should be placed in the permanent custody of RCCSB and that such an order would be in their best interest. 2T. at 607; Court’s Exhibit E. {¶48} The ongoing caseworker in this matter, based upon her testimony , is of the opinion that all the children should be placed in the permanent custody of RCCSB, and that such an order would be in the children's best interest. 1T . at 566-567. Entry granting permanent custody {¶49} The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) that each child was in the temporary custody of RCCS for more than 12 consecutive months of a 22-month period of time. In the alte rnative, the Court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children cannot be pl aced with either parent within a reasonable period of time, and should not be placed wi th such parents pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a), R.C. 2151.414(D), (E)(1) and (E)(4), specifically citing theRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 13 parents’ failure to remedy the problems that initially caused e ach child to be placed outside the home. The trial court noted Mother’s consistent an d repeated failure to position herself to assume the responsibilities associated with the full-time care of her children. The trial court further found that Mother, Has demonstrated a lack of commitment towards the children by her consistent failure to adequately and sufficiently address her o wn deficiencies to thusly position herself to be able to provide f or the child[ren]'s basic needs. Mother's continuous, deplorable behavior modeled f or the children and imitated by them, as described in the above findin gs of fact; her reluctance in obt aining a psychological evaluation and foll owing up with counseling; her husband's abuse of her and the children and his alcohol and pill addiction; her commitment to an abusive husband over h er children, particularly after he burned [Child 2’s] clothing in the drivew ay; her failure to ensure [Child 2]had proper schooling and her lack of provision of food at times. * * * Both parents have mental health issues that make a return to ei ther parent contrary to the best interests of each child. Their ment al health issues have created chaos for the children and modeled anti-soc ial behavior patterns that the children have also exhibited. There is no rea son to believe that the parents have remedied the problems that led to the rem oval of their children. If the children were placed with either parent, it is most likely that the children's behavior would deteriorate again.Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 14 Assignments of Error {¶50} Mother appeals raising two Assignments of Error, {¶51} “I. TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT PERMANENT CUSTODY WAS WARRANTED IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. {¶52} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN F INDING THAT RI CHLAND COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNITE THE CHILDREN WITH APPELLANT/MOTHER.” I & II Standard of Appellate Review {¶53} “[T]he right to raise a child is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic’ civ il right.” In re Murray , 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157, 556 N.E.2d 1169(1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois , 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551(1972). A parent's inte rest in the care, custody and management of his or her child is “fundamental.” Id.; Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599(1982). The permanent termination of a parent's rights has been described as, “* * * the family law equivalent to the death penalty in a criminal case.” In re Smith, 77 Ohio App.3d 1, 16, 601 N.E.2d 45(6th Dist. 1991). Therefore, parents “must be afforded every procedural and subst antive protection the law allows.” Id. An award of permanent custody must be based upon clear and convincing evidence. R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). {¶54} The Ohio Supreme Court has delineated our standard of review as follows, “clear and convincing evidence” is “[t]he measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere prepon derance, but not to theRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 15 extent of such certainty as required beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. It does not mean clear and unequivocal.” In re Estate of Haynes , 25 Ohio St.3d 101, 103- 104, 495 N.E.2d 23 (1986). In Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 120 N.E. 2T 118 (1954), the Supreme Court further cautioned, The mere number of witnesses, who may support a claim of one o r the other of the parties to an action, is not to be taken as a basis for resolving disputed facts. The degree of proof required is determined by the impression which the testimony of the witnesses makes upon the trier of facts, and the character of the testimony itself. Credibility, intelligence, freedom from bias or prejudice, opportunity to be informed, the disposition to tell the truth or otherwise, and the probability or improbab ility of the statements made, are all tests of testimonial value. Where the evidence is in conflict, the trier of facts may determine what should be accepted as the truth and what should be rejected as false . See Rice v. City of Cleveland , 114 Ohio St. 299, 58 N.E.2d 768. 161 Ohio St. at 477-478. (Emphasis added). A court of appeals will affirm the trial court's findings “if the record contains competent, credible evidence b y which the court could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential stat utory elements for a termination of parental rights have been established.” In re Adkins, 5th Dist. Nos. 2005AP06–0044 and 2005AP07–0049, 2006-Ohio-431, 2006 WL 242557, ¶17. Requirements for Permanent Custody Awards {¶55} R.C. 2151.414 sets forth the guidelines a trial court must foll ow when deciding a motion for permanent custody. R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) m andates the trial courtRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 16 schedule a hearing and provide not ice upon filing of a motion f or permanent custody of a child by a public children services agency or private child pla cing agency that has temporary custody of the child or has placed the child in long- term foster care. {¶56} Following the hearing, R.C. 2151.414(B) authorizes the juvenile court to grant permanent custody of the child to the public or private a gency if the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency, and that any of the following apply: (a) The child is not abandoned or orphaned, has not been in th e temporary custody of one or more public children services agenc ies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a c onsecutive twenty-two-month period, or has not been in the temporary custo dy of one or more public children services agencies or private child plac ing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month per iod if, as described in division (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state, and the child cannot be placed with either of th e child's parents within a reasonable time or should not be placed with t he child's parents; (b) the child is abandoned; (c) the child is orphaned and there are no relatives of the ch ild who are able to take permanent custody; or (d) The child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies fo r twelve orRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 17 more months of a consecutive twenty-two-month period, or the ch ild has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children se rvices agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more m onths of a consecutive twenty-two-month period and, as described in divisi on (D)(1) of section 2151.413 of the Revised Code, the child was previously in the temporary custody of an equivalent agency in another state. {¶57} Therefore, R.C. 2151.414(B) establishes a two-pronged analysis the trial court must apply when ruling on a motion for permanent custody. In practice, the trial court will usually determine whether one of the four circumstan ces delineated in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (d) is present before proceeding to a determination regarding the best interest of the child. The child had been in the temporary custody of the agency for a period more than twelve of the prior twenty -two consecutive m onths – R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d). {¶58} Before a public children-services agency or private child-plac ing agency can move for permanent custody of a child on R.C. 2151.414(B)(1 )(d) grounds, the child must have been in the temporary custody of an agency for at lea st 12 months of a consecutive 22–month period. In re: C.W., 104 Ohio St.3d 163, 2004-Ohio-6411, 818 N.E.2d 1176 at paragraph one of the syllabus. When calculating this period, the court in C.W. cautioned, “the time that passes between the filing of a motion for permanent custody and the permanent-custody hearing does not count toward the 12–month period set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d).” Id. at 167, 2004-Ohio-6 411 at ¶ 26, 818 N.E.2d at 1180. Accord, In re: N.C. , 5th Dist. No. 2011-CA-00141, 2011-Ohio-6113, ¶32.Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 18 {¶59} As we have previously noted in our review of the procedural his tory of these cases, the record establishes that each child had been in the t emporary custody of the agency for a period of time in excess of twelve of the prior tw enty-two consecutive months at the time the permanent custody motion was filed. 1T. at 443- 450. Child 1 has been placed out of their home for the last 21 months; Child 3 and Ch ild 4 have been placed out of the home for the last 19 months; Child 2 has been placed out of the home for the last 18 months. {¶60} As findings under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) and R.C. 2151.414(B)(1 )(d) are alternative findings, each is independently sufficient to use a s a basis to grant the motion for permanent custody. In re Daltoni, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2007 AP 0041, 2007-Ohio5805. This finding alone, in conjunction with a best interest f inding, is sufficient to support the grant of permanent custody. In re Calhoun , 5th Dist. Stark No. 2008CA00118, 2008- Ohio-5458. {¶61} Because Mother has not challenged the twelve of twenty-two-mont h finding as to the children, we would not need to address the merits of Mother’s assignments of error. However, even if we consider Mother’s arguments the tria l court did not err in determining the children cannot be placed with Mother at this t ime or within a reasonable period of time. Parental Placement within a Reasonable Time– R.C. 2151.414(B)(1 )(a). {¶62} The court must consider all relevant evidence before determini ng the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with the parents. R.C. 2151.414(E). The statute also indicates that if the court makes a finding under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1)-(15), the court shall determine the c hildren cannot or shouldRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 19 not be placed with the parent. A trial court may base its decis ion that a child cannot be placed with a parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with a parent upon the existence of any one of the R.C. 2151.414(E) factors. The e xistence of one factor alone will support a finding that t he child cannot be placed wi th the parent within a reasonable time. See In re William S ., 75 Ohio St.3d 95, 1996–Ohio–182, 661 N.E.2d 738; In re Hurlow , 4th Dist. Gallia No. 98 CA 6, 1997 WL 701328 (Sept. 21, 1998) ; In re Butcher , 4th Dist. Athens No. 1470, 1991 WL 62145(Apr. 10, 1991). {¶63} R.C. 2151.414(E) sets forth factors a trial court is to consid er in determining whether a child cannot be placed with either parent within a re asonable period of time or should not be placed with the parents. Specifically, Section (E ) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (E) In determining at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) o f this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151 .353 of the Revised Code whether a child cannot be placed with either paren t within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with the pare nts, the court shall consider all relevant evidence. If the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, at a hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section or for the purposes of division (A)(4) of section 2151. 353 of the Revised Code that one or more of the following exist as to each of the child’s parents, the court shall enter a finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent:Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 20 (1) Following the placement of the child outside the child’s ho me and notwithstanding reasonable case planning and diligent efforts b y the agency to assist the parents to remedy the problems that initially cau sed the child to be placed outside the home, the parent has failed continuous ly and repeatedly to substantially remedy the conditions causing the c hild to be placed outside the child’s home. In determining whether the par ents have substantially remedied those conditions, the court shall consid er parental utilization of medical, psychiatr ic, psychological, and other s ocial and rehabilitative services and materi al resources that were made a vailable to the parents for changing parental conduct to allow them to resu me and maintain parental duties. * * * (16) Any other factor the court considers relevant. {¶64} As set forth above, the trial court’s findings are based upon c ompetent credible evidence. The record includes the recommendation of th e guardian ad litem for the child, and the testimony of the witnesses at trial. The tri al court was in the best position to determine the credibility of the witnesses. {¶65} In the case at bar, Mother has consistently, defiantly and voca lly refused to accept any responsibility for her children’s poor behavior. Mo ther has shown little interest in working with RCCS or anyone to reunify with her children. Mo ther continually blames others for her and her children’s situation. Mother has had tw o older children from previous relationships removed fr om her custody. 1T. at 30. Des pite offering numerousRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 21
services, Mother was unable or unwilling to mitigate the concer ns that led to the children’s removal. {¶66} A parent’s successful completion of the terms of a case plan is not dispositive on the issue of reunification. The ultimate questi on under R.C. 2151.414(A)(1) is whether the parent has substantially remedied the conditions that caused the child’s removal. In re Shchigelski , 11th Dist. Geauga No. 99–G–2241, 2000 WL 1568388(Oct. 20, 2000); In re McKenzie , 9th Dist. Wayne No. 95CA0015, 1995 WL 608285(Oct. 18, 1995). A parent can successfully complete the terms of a case plan yet not substantially remedy the conditions that caused the children to be removed—th e case plan is simply a means to a goal, but not the goal itself. Hence, the courts ha ve held that the successful completion of case plan requirements does not preclude a grant of permanent custody to a social services agency. In re J.L., 8th Dist. No. 84368, 2004–Ohio–6024, ¶ 20; In re Mraz , 12th Dist. Nos. CA2002–05–011, CA2002–07–014, 2002–Ohio–7278. In the case of In re: Summerfield , 5th Dist. Stark No. 2005CA00139, 2005-Ohio-5523, this Court found where, despite marginal compliance with some aspects of t he case plan, the exact problems that led to the initial removal remained in existence, a court does not err in finding the child cannot be placed with the parent within a rea sonable time. {¶67} The evidence demonstrated the very little successful efforts Mo ther had made on the case plan. On that point, the evidence demonstrate s that any improvement that Mother has made in her life is tentative and, perhaps, tem porary, and that she is at risk of relapse. The trial court found that, regardless of Mot her’s compliance with aspects of her case plan, she was still not able to be a successful par ent to these children.Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 22 {¶68} We find there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the children cannot be placed with Mother wi thin a reasonable time or should not be placed with Mother. Reasonable Efforts {¶69} In her Second Assignment of Error, Mother contends the trial co urt abused its discretion in finding RCCS m ade reasonable efforts to reuni fy the children with Mother. The Mother argues that RCCS never assisted her to set up counse ling, assessment, treatment or other case plan requirements. {¶70} The Supreme Court of Ohio in In re C.F. , 113 Ohio St. 3-D 73, 78, 862 N.E. 2T 816, 821(2007) noted, [N]o one section of the Revised Code addresses the concept of reasonable efforts. Overall, Ohio’s child-welfare laws are desi gned to care for and protect children, ‘whenever possible, in a family envir onment, separating the child from the child’s parents only when necessa ry for the child’s welfare or in the intere sts of public saf ety.’ R.C. 215 1. 01(A). To that end, various sections of the Revised Code refer to the agency’s duty to make reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family unit. For example, R.C. 2151. 412 requires the agency to prepare and maintain a ca se plan for children in temporary custody with the goal ‘to eliminate with all due speed the need for the out-of-home placement so that the child can sa fely return home.’ Under R.C. 2151. 413(D)(3)(b), an agency may not file fo r permanent custody under R.C. 2151. 413(D) - the ‘12 months out of 22 rule’- ‘[I]f reasonable efforts to return the child to the child’s hom e are requiredRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 23 under section 2151. 419’ and the agency has not provided the se rvices required by the case plan. {¶71} A “reasonable effort” is “* * * an honest, purposeful effort, f ree of malice and the design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage.” In re Weaver , 79 Ohio App.3d 59, 63, 606 N.E.2d 1011(12th Dist. 1992). The issue is n ot whether there was anything more the agency could have done, but whether the agenc y’s case planning and efforts were reasonable and diligent under the circumstances of the case. In re J.D ., 3rd Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-10-34, 2011-Ohio-1458. The child’s health and safety is paramount in determining whether reasonable efforts were made. In re R.P ., 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2011-Ohio-5378. {¶72} R.C. 2151.419 requires the trial court to determine whether the agency filing the complaint for custody “has made reasonable efforts * * * to eliminate the continued removal of the child from his home, or to make it possible for the child to return home.” Subsection (B)(1) mandates the trial court to issue written fin dings of fact setting forth the reasonable efforts made by the agency, including a brief descri ption of “the relevant services provided by the agency to the family of the child and why those services did not prevent the removal of the child from his home or enable the ch ild to return home.” {¶73} However, even where a trial court has failed to include in its judgment entry, the findings contemplated by R.C. 2151.419(B)(1) we have found that the ultimate issue is the reasonableness of the Department’s efforts, and have con cluded those efforts may be determined from the record. In the matter of Kell/Bess Children , 5th Dist. No. 97CA0278, 1998 WL 401767(Mar. 23, 1998); Hunt v. Ickes , 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2014 AP 08 0032, 2015-Ohio-309, ¶19Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 24 {¶74} We find there is competent and credible evidence to support the trial court’s determination that RCCS efforts w ere reasonable and diligent un der the circumstances of the case. {¶75} The trial court found that neither parent has made significant progress on the case plan. No motion was made to extend the order of tempor ary custody to the agency. The trial court found that RCCS filed a case plan. RCCS did make referrals. Mother’s delay in seeking an appointment with Dr. Thomas contri buted to the short period of time Mother had to work on her objectives. Mother’s refused to contact RCCS contributed to the delays and any lack of referrals. 1T. at 458

. {¶76} Mother chose to attend only one day of the multiple day permane nt custody hearing. The record makes clear Mother refuses to accept any re sponsibility for the children’s poor behavior and instead blames RCCS. The record is clear that Mother does not believe she needs help and that she did nothing wrong. {¶77} We find that the record supports that RCCS was working toward t he goal of reunification. We find no evidence of dishonest purpose, consci ous wrongdoing, or breach of duty on the part of RCCS. {¶78} Having reviewed the record, we find that RCCS made a good fait h effort to reunify Mother and her children. Furthermore, the record contai ns clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s determination that the children could not be placed with Mother. The Best Interest of the Children {¶79} An agency that seeks permanent custody of a child bears the bu rden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the grant of perm anent custody is in theRichland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 25

child’s best interest. In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55, 2014-Ohio-4558, 21 N.E.3d 308, ¶ 26. R.C. 2151. 414(D)(1) sets out a nonexhaustive list of factors the court mu st consider: {¶80} R.C. 2151.414(D) requires the trial court to consider all relev ant factors in determining whether the child’s best interests would be served by granting the permanent custody motion. These factors include but are not limited to: (1) the interrelationship of the child with others; (2) the wishes of the child; (3) the cus todial history of the child; (4) the child’s need for a legally secure placement and whether suc h a placement can be achieved without permanent custody; and (5) whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) apply. {¶81} The factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11), which are refe rred to in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e), involve a parent’s having been convicte d of or pleaded guilty to specific criminal offenses against the child, the child’s sibli ng or another child who lived in the parent’s household; a parent’s withholding medical treat ment or food from the child; a parent’s repeatedly placing the child at substantial risk of harm because of alcohol or drug abuse; a parent’s abandoning the child; and a parent’s hav ing had parental rights as to the child’s sibling involuntarily terminated. {¶82} No one element is given greater weight or heightened significa nce. In re C.F., 113 Ohio St.3d 73, 2007-Ohio-1104, 862 N.E.2d 816. R.C. 2151.4 14(D)(1) does not require a juvenile court to make specific findings regarding ea ch best-interest factor listed in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) or to include in its decision or judgmen t entry a written discussion of each of those factors. In re: A.M., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5102, 2020WL6439610 (Nov. 3, 2020). ¶33.Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 26 {¶83} A child’s best interests are served by the child being placed in a permanent situation that fosters growth, s tability, and security. We have frequently noted, “[t]he discretion which the juvenile court enjoys in determining wheth er an order of permanent custody is in the best interest of a child should be accorded t he utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact the court’s determinati on will have on the lives of the parties concerned.” In re Mauzy Children, 5th Dist. No. 2000CA00244, 2000 WL 1700073 (Nov. 13, 2000), citing In re Awkal, 85 Ohio App.3d 309, 316, 642 N.E.2d 424 (8th Dist. 1994). {¶84} We conclude that the juvenile court’s judgment entry demonstrat es that the court complied with R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). {¶85} The trial judge specifically found that it was in the children’ s best interest to award permanent custody to the department. The juvenile court judge also individually cited each of the factors set out in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) thr ough (e), in language tailored to the facts of this case. The trial judge noted the each child ’s wishes, the child’s difficulties in foster care placement, and the interrelation of the siblings to each other. Ultimately, the trial court came to the difficult decision that the wishes of t he children are at odds with their best wishes. After over two years, Mother has steadfastl y refused to accept responsibility or to set about the task of becoming a loving, n urturing parent capable of modeling the type of safe, calm and productive behavior that th e children need. Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that more time or a return of custody to the Mother will in any way benefit the children. {¶86} In the present case, the trial court concluded the children's n eed for legally secure placement could not be achieved without awarding permane nt custody to RCCS.Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 27 Upon review of the record, we find that the record supports the trial court's finding that granting the motion for permanent custody is in the children’s best interest. {¶87} In short, the juvenile court’s judgment entry demonstrates that the court satisfied its statutory duty to consider the best interest fact ors set out in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a) through (e). Conclusion {¶88} For these reasons, we find that the trial court’s determinatio n that Mother had failed to remedy the issues th at caused the initial removal and therefore the children could not be placed with her within a reasonable time or should not be placed with her was based upon competent credible evidence and is not against t he manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. We further find that the trial cou rt’s decision that permanent custody to RCCS was in the children’s best interest was based u pon competent, credible evidence and is not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence.Richland County, Case Nos. 2021 CA 0025, 2021 CA 0026, 2021 CA 0027, & 2021 CA 0028 28 {¶89} Because the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s j udgment, we overrule Appellant-Mother’s two assignments of error, and affir m the decision of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Court Division.

By Gwin, P.J, Delaney, J., and Baldwin, J., concur

WSG:clw0214